[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-05-06

Summary:

   - Added SVG's coordination message to June F2F agenda
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0001.html
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 72
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-72
   - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 73
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-73
   - Discussed CSS2.1 Issue 117 (vertical alignment underdefined0
       http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-117
     Further dscussion deferred to next week
   - Assigned issues prep work to various members.


====== Full minutes below ======

Attendees:
   César Acebal
   David Baron
   Bert Bos
   Elika Etemad
   Daniel Glazman
   Peter Linss
   Sylvain Galineau
   Emily (via IRC)
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-CSS-irc
ScribeNick: fantasai


SVG property coordination
-------------------------

   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0001.html
   glazou: I think it's extremely good to see the SVG working group discussing
           these things with CSSWG
   glazou: But I'm not sure what actions should be done to help here
   fantasai: They mention some incompatibilities with 'width' and 'height',
             we should look into those
   fantasai: The other ones... they seem very strange for CSS properties, but
             I don't know what else to do with them
   Bert: Maybe Chris knows about them?
   Bert: We could discuss it at the F2F
   glazou: We could let them know that we will discuss this at the F2F in June
   ACTION glazou Reply to Doug

TPAC
----

   ?: Do we know what's going on with TPAC?
   fantasai: Doug Schepers was going to look into a joint meeting with SVG,
             HTML, WebApps, and us, but HTML apparently hasn't even heard of
             this so it doesn't seem he's looked into it much
   Bert: There will be a TPAC, just smaller than usual
   glazou: mini-TPAC doesn't seem to be moving forward, so we should make
           sure we are part of TPAC
   peter: at least not preclude ourselves from attending

CSS2.1: Saloni's Old Issues
----------------------------

   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0518.html
   Peter: There was a note to update the proposal for Issue 72?
   Sylvain: Yeah, the issue is that nobody does what is in the spec
   Sylvain: We recommend adopting the proposal
   fantasai: I think we need to add that the effect of these extra cells on
             the table is undefined
   RESOLVED: Proposal accepted as stated in issues list (Issue 72)

   Sylvain: We agree with proposal in Issue 73
   RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for 73


CSS2.1 Issue 117
----------------

   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0004.html
   <dbaron> I disagree with some of his editorial proposals.
   <fantasai> I'm going through them, and I'll be posting a response to
              www-style about those
   <fantasai> but this one's just about the line-height issue
   <fantasai> I also disagree with some of his editorial edits
   <dbaron> So I think this is a known undefined issue
   <dbaron> which we plan to solve in css3
   <dbaron> I think it's the issue of what happens when the tallest thing in
            the line is bottom/top aligned.
   <dbaron> the position of the rest is undefined
   fantasai: should we call this out as explicitly undefined?
   * dbaron thought we did call it out, but maybe not
   SteveZ: What about testing it?
   <sylvaing> ie8 and webkit match the first test (alignment.html)
   Peter: I don't think it's hard to test, just have to see if we have
          implementations
   SteveZ: I think we should take a week to investigate and find out if there's
           any guidance we can give, even if we can't resolve it
   <dbaron> I guess we don't say anything about it being undefined.
   <sylvaing> opera 9.64, Firefox 3.5b4, Chrome and ie8 all match on the
              strut.html test
   <dbaron> I'm not sure 4b is an issue.
   SteveZ: I think comment 4c is correct
   <dbaron> We just don't describe it as a strut, I think.
   <dbaron> although we sort of do
   <dbaron> I guess perhaps the problem is that we describe it as a strut
            rather than as the anonymous inline box.
   <dbaron> and this would all fall through cleanly if we did the latter
   <CesarAcebal> zakim, ??P19 is CesarAcebal
   <Zakim> +CesarAcebal; got it
   fantasai: I remember this getting discussed a long time ago, when I first
             joined www-style. The strut wording was accepted as a compromise
             because some WG members didn't want to introduce an anonymous
             inline box
   <fantasai> (that encloses all the inline contents of a block)
   <dbaron> I think it was because Tantek wanted to make only minimal changes
            since we were almost done with CSS 2.1. :-)
   SteveZ: I don't understand how the anonymous inline box would solve this
           problem cmp struts
   Bert: The anonymous inline box is empty, so it wouldn't have height
   fantasai: It's not empty, and empty inline boxes don't get collapsed unless
             they're the only thing in the block
   fantasai: we're talking about the /root/ anonymous inline box, which is a
             concept that doesn't exist in the spec except in the
             text-decoration section
   * dbaron wishes he'd clicked through the link on the Agenda to realize that
            issue 117 was something he should have looked through in advance
   Steve proposes deferring to next week
   Deferred to next week
   fantasai will be responding to this email and filing issues as necessary

Assigning CSS2.1 Issues
-----------------------

   Peter: There are a bunch of issues still open that need work
   Peter: I want to make sure someone is working on each of them
   <sylvaing> arronei volunteers for 53
   <fantasai> :)
   * fantasai assigns
   <sylvaing> arronei for 69 also
   <fantasai> assigned
   <sylvaing> I thought 111 was done as part of Bert's last spec update ?
   <fantasai> no, that was some other issues :)
   <fantasai> we're still waiting on jdaggett to propose text
   <sylvaing> oops
   <dbaron> I suppose I could take 26
   <fantasai> makes sense
   <fantasai> arronei, can you take 107?
   <fantasai> bzbarsky is working on 109 and 110
   <sylvaing> arronei says yes
   <fantasai> cool
   <Bert> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/dom.html#the-style-attribute
   <sylvaing> sylvaing wants to learn about z-index so will take 60 (and
              probably regret it)
   * Bert wishes sylvain luck :-)
   * sylvaing is reassured now
   <fantasai> I'll take 89
   <sylvaing> sure
   <sylvaing> will take 61
   <fantasai> 111 is jdaggett
   <sylvaing> arronei can do the testcases for 114
   fantasai takes 115
   <fantasai> arronei: thanks for taking on the testcases :)
   <sylvaing> arronei don't do prose :)
   <arronei> yeah not problem I'll do the test cases then we can see where we
             need to go from there
   <fantasai> Issues list updated

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 08:29:12 UTC